On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:17:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
You can modify a GPL'ed compiler to work as a stand alone
server with shared memory interface. You are allowed to
distribute it as a binary with other kinds of software. You
don't have to make source available unless the receiver of the
binary explicitly requests it, and only for the GPL'ed server.
I don't know about that last point, and I'm not about to reread
the GPL to find out, but sure, it's all a matter of how tightly
you link against GPL code.
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:25:56 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 21/05/14 09:50, Joakim wrote:
Yes, but they moved to the UIUC-licensed (basically the BSD
license) llvm eventually, partially because they wanted Xcode
to
directly link against it. I think it's that kind of
integration
that Andre and Max have in mind, though as John noted, they're
not particularly precise about what they want.
That's a completely different thing. I would like to see
someone try doing that with DMD ;). I assume they didn't want
to do that since that feels quite unrealistic at this stage,
DMD is not really meant for this type of integration.
I don't think they know that. ;)
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:59:54 UTC, Max Barraclough wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 07:50:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I'd hope not. ;)
Other than the Artistic Licence dual-licensing, what did I get
wrong?
Well, that's a pretty fundamental point, but it was a joke. See
the wink? :)
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 10:02:31 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
Also, note that linking to GPL licenced shared
libraries/dlls/dylibs or whatever you use doesn't necessarily
mean the GPL has got you wrapped in it's rather fuzzy web.
AKAIK it's a matter of debate and has never been tested in
court, but it's enough for many current creators/distributors
of closed source software for linux who call various GPL system
libs via the shared library interfaces.
And constantly in flux, see the recent court decision that
claimed that Google's use of Java APIs in Android infringed on
Oracle's "copyright" on them:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/dangerous-ruling-oracle-v-google-federal-circuit-reverses-sensible-lower-court
Also - and this is the biggest thing that people fail to
realise in all software license debates - it is a practical
impossibility to create a software license that is well defined
and valid in all jurisdictions. For a global enterprise, almost
*everything* is legally fuzzy.
It is true that widely varying copyright laws all over the world
make it difficult for more ambitious licenses like the GPL to be
written, as opposed to simpler licenses like BSD, but it is also
true that many of those OSS licenses are badly written even for
the one jurisdiction they were written in. The Artistic license
has taken a lot of flak for this over the years, same with parts
of the GPL.
